ArticleBiosensors2024
Electrical Conductivity Measurement in Human Liver Tissue: Assessment on Normal vs. Tumor Tissue and under In Vivo vs. Ex Vivo Conditions.
Article in Biosensors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nakagami Statistics-Based Parametric Thermoacoustic Imaging for Assessment of Liver Microwave Ablation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Conductivity-based choline contrast as a potential imaging biomarker for assessing abnormal choline metabolism.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Article
- Innovation for using dielectric properties to distinguish lung tumor from normal lung tissues and preliminary exploration for the relevance with metabolic features.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Flexoelectricity in Biological Materials and Its Potential Applications in Biomedical Research.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated electrical conductivity in human liver tissue in the 3-1000 kHz frequency range to compare normal versus tumor tissues under in vivo versus ex vivo conditions.
methodsPrevious informed consent was obtained from twenty patients undergoing liver resection in whom liver electrical conductivity was measured during surgery and after resection.
resultWe found higher electrical conductivity values in tumor tissues than in normal tissue in both in vivo (0.41 ± 0.10 vs. 0.13 ± 0.06 S/m) and ex vivo (0.27 ± 0.09 vs. 0.12 ± 0.07 S/m) conditions (at 3 kHz). The electric properties also showed a promising potential for distinguishing between different tissue types including metastasis, cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), hepatic cirrhosis, and normal liver (both in vivo and ex vivo). At 3 kHz, in vivo electrical conductivity for cholangiocarcinoma, HCC, and metastasis were 0.35, 0.42 ± 0.13, and 0.41 ± 0.08 S/m, respectively, which differed significantly from each other (
conclusionsThese findings could potentially improve liver disease diagnostics through electrical conductivity measurements and treatment techniques involving electric fields. Future research should focus on expanding the sample size to refine the categorization and comparison processes across diverse human liver tissue types.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.